[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitateIPv6 deployment

[Alain Durand]

On 6/7/08 10:13 PM, "Paul Vixie" <paul at vix.com> wrote:

> i think that the industry's early reaction to iana runout and/or RIR runout
> will be to loosen filters since a lot of address blocks and therefore a lot
> of potential customers would be hidden by the filters described above (/24)
> and the initial desire will be to continue growing since a lot of the big guys
> have megaroute cores.  competition of the form "i'll charge you less but i'll
> have to NAT you" won't always win vs. competition of the form "i'll charge
> you the same, or i'll charge you more, but i won't NAT you."  smaller ISP's
> without megaroute cores won't have good leverage if they want to ignore these
> routes.  hierarchical routing, as a principle, will take an arrow in the neck,
> and won't return until non-hierarchical growth proves measureably impossible.
> 
> what do others think?

My personal opinion is that we have to make policies using the best
*current* knowledge of how routing works. Filters on prefix length exists
*today* and we must take them into account. If those filters go away in the
future and the internet goes to flat route every single /28 or so, that is
about 250 million routes... We all would be in a much different place.

Knowing what we know about the current generation routers, it seems prudent
to craft policies that not only do not have too negative an effect on
routing table size, but also care about ACL size.

   - Alain.